Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Of Course Jesus Existed

Posted on: December 9, 2007 - 2:06am

Euthymius

Posts: 20

Joined: 2007-11-22

Offline

Of Course Jesus Existed

Note: I am not a theologian or scholar. I am a simple layman. The below is a reflection of my own opinion, having studied this subject and engaged in several debates. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect any official position of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church cannot be held responsible or liable for any errors I might make. The below thesis is simply my own observation, but I believe there is truth to it.

MY ARGUMENT

I am a member of the Greek Orthodox Church. I do not wish to partake in this debate, because by doing so I would be stooping to your level and implying you have a case. You don't. Atheists do not even have the right or authority to even question the historical Christ. I just have a few words.

The rise of the "mythicist" theory (that Jesus is mythical) is a direct result of the errors of the Protestant theology of the 16th century. It was from liberal Protestantism that the "mythicist" theory begun.

By rejecting the authority and ontological existence and reality of the Orthodox Church, Protestantism reduced Christianity to a mere "philosophy," and Christ to just another sage or teacher. This was not intentional, but it was a direct result of their anti-Church stance.

The New Testament is one of the greatest proofs of Jesus, as is the existential and empirical reality of the Orthodox Church (which Christ founded). But Protestantism rejected the Church (which is the other greatest proof), and relegated Christ to nothing but the testimony of the New Testament. The New Testament AND the Orthodox Church, comprise the two wings of authority of authentic Christianity. It takes two wings to fly. Protestants rejected the other wing (the Church Christ founded), and thereby damaged Christian authority and the message of authentic Christianity. By rejecting the Church, they made Christianity (and Christ) susceptible to attack. The rejection of the Orthodox Church left Christianity with holes, open to attack.

The protestants were desperate to garner other "evidences" for Jesus, so they amassed a great deal of "extra-biblical" sources in corroboration with the New Testament (Roman sources, Gnostic, Patristic, Jewish, etc), in order to support the historical Jesus. But since they rejected the validity of the Orthodox Church, which Christ personally established, they were rejecting the greatest proof there is for His existence.

The Orthodox Church was founded by Christ. No historical person has ever founded such an institution; especially one that has lasted and survived through every conceivable onslaught for 2,000 years.

The scientific anthropic principle states that, in its initial conditions, the universe was fine-tuned for the existence and sustenance of life.

There is an anthropic truth with the Orthodox Church. It was fine-tuned by the God-Man (Christ) for the existence of spiritual life. The existence of our many millions of saints (which the west is generally ignorant of), is proof that the Church is a Divine institution. It sanctifies and deifies souls. The Orthodox Church maintains, to this day, direct apostolic (or bishop) succession that goes all the way back to Christ. There is an ancient "rule of faith" (regula fidei) that guarantees the truth about Christ and authentic Christianity. Irenaeus (he was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John) states that this "regula fidei" is where correct doctrine (orthodoxy) and bishop succession (the laying on of hands) exists.

WE STILL HAVE THIS IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH TODAY

In Summary and Conclusion,

Protestantism rejected the actual Church that Christ personally founded.

The "mythicist" theory (that Jesus is mythical) came from liberal Protestantism.

By rejecting this Church, Protestantism demoted Christ (though not intentionally) to the level of other sages and teachers; robbing him of His special uniqueness, and making Him vulnerable to attack.

I would say the greatest proofs of Jesus Christ are:

1. The Orthodox Church which He personally founded.

2. Apostolic Succession and the rule of faith (regula fedei).

3. The anthropic spirituality (fine-tuning) within the Orthodox Church that has produced countless saints.

4. The New Testament documents.

5. All the other extra-biblical data.

6. The collective cultural memory and tradition that has been handed down of the original divine knowledge (this is also contained within the authority of the Orthodox Church, apostolic succession and the rule of faith).

The fifth is not what we base the historical Christ on. It is simply what we would expect to find.

The fallacy of the modern "mythicists" and Protestants is that they approached this subject using the inductive method of historical investigation. They investigated this subject backwards. They used the New Testament and the extra-biblical material as if those things alone comprise the totality of the evidence for Christ. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IS THE GREATEST PROOF

CHURCH FATHERS

There are about 500 volumes of writings and teachings of the Church Fathers in Armenian, Coptic and Syriac. Here are the primary (not secondary) source material in Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, Greek and Latin. If you want to learn and hear what true Christianity is from the best sources, learn these languages and read this material in the original languages.

The Code of Justinian, edited in Berlin in the Corpus Iuris Civilis, as well as certain supplemental laws known in Latin as Novellae

English: Anti-Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (38 volumes)

INTRODUCTION TO CHURCH HISTORY

The Christian Tradition (five volumes), by Jaroslav Pelikan (recipient of the John Kluge Award and 42 honorary doctorates. Considered the worlds leading expert on Christian history).

There are many what are called "Jesus historians" today who affirm Jesus existed. In fact, no one who is a recognized "Jesus historian"today denies He existed. I have a list and several quotes and sources by them. But they are really insignificant compared to the Church Fathers. None of these "Jesus historians" have the real authority the Church Fathers have. Read the Church Fathers.

Don't read modern day atheists who are 2,000 years too late and have no authority. Read Saints Maxmus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, Theodore the Studite, John Chrystotom, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, etc. Read Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus (Aganist Heresies). These holy men had direct mystical contact with the risen Christ.

There is something else I want to add. The immediate successors of the Apostles, are known as the apostolic fathers. Some of them (Clement, Ignatius) knew the apostles personally. The original teaching and knowledge was obvious that Jesus was historical. No one even disputed this untill I think the 19th century, and on (to quote Encyclopedia Britanica), "inadequate grounds."

The Church is like a tree.

It grew from a seed. The seed was Christ. A seed must first die before it grows and produces fruit. Jesus died and rose again. The Church was born. The Church is a tree extending through time and history. It is a direct result of His resurrection. This is the greatest proof.

The problem is that modern man (especially in the west) is losing any sense of history. History and the Orthodox Church vindicate Jesus' historicity.

Remember Apotheon? His old avatar was Euthymius, actually... hmm. What is it about Greek Orthodoxy that so ravages the mind? Is it the beards? Was Kim Jong Il correct in his public service announcement, “Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle,” in suggesting it diverts vital nutrients from the brain? Most of the bearded religions are pretty bad, if you think about it.

Euthymis, this is a debate forum and if you have no plan to debate, provide evidence of your statements or engage in a discussion about them, then your post constitutes proselytizing, which violates the rules of this site. Please re-evaluate your position or consider this a warning.

SIMPLE? You flatter yourself! Your unfounded suppositions are so indelibly obtuse. Go ahead and prevaricate. This is an attempt to proselytize and you will gain no ground here. Your vacuous post has no place here and I vote for removal.

Miracles don't exist. "Miracle" is a word given to a preposterous event that a theist considers dogmatically advantageous. Def. - Ecclesiastical sensationalism.

Note: I am not a theologian or scholar. I am a simple layman. The below is a reflection of my own opinion, having studied this subject and engaged in several debates. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect any official position of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church cannot be held responsible or liable for any errors I might make. The below thesis is simply my own observation, but I believe there is truth to it.

This just demonstrates to me that you grovel at the feet of delusion.

Quote:

MY ARGUMENT

READ: MY MADE UP SHIT

Quote:

I am a member of the Greek Orthodox Church.

I'm sorry for you. Go to your master, little one.

Quote:

I do not wish to partake in this debate, because by doing so I would be stooping to your level rising above my level of ignorance *fixed* and implying you have a case. You don't.

I don't have a 'case' because its your 'case'; you have the burden of proof. Its your absurd claim.

Quote:

Atheists do not even have the right or authority to even question the historical Christ. I just have a few words.

Prove there was a jesus. There, I questioned it. Now what are you going to do about it dumb ass?

I will never, NEVER, consider you and your master an authority.

The orthodox church is a fungus on my feces.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.

There is what is known in logic as the fallacy of the immovable rock. Modern atheists have already made-up their mind. They are not interested in the truth and facts. They have an agenda, and nothing is going to stop them (as far as they are concerned). They will continue being deceived and deceiving others.

By rejecting the Divine authority and nature of the Orthodox Church (the criterian of truth), all the false religions and heresies (Budhism, Hinduism, Islam, Gnosticism, Protestantism, Atheism etc) relegated Christianity to the level of other religions, and demoted Christ to that of sage, prophet, teacher or myth.

This is the problem with the modern Protestant "apologetic" method on the historical Jesus. They mean well, but they have damaged the Christian witness by rejecting the Divine nature of the Orthodox Church -- the Church Christ established, which is the greatest proof of all.

It's a three legged stool:

Bible, Church, Traidition.

Protestants rejected Church and Tradition, leaving the stool with only one leg -- which cannot stand.

If the Bible was removed from the world, Protestantism would die. But Orthodoxy would continue to flourish because it has tradition and Church.

When speaking of tradition, I'm not talking about dead relics and beliefs of the past. Tradition (paradosis) as understood by the Orthodox Church, is the living and breathing experience and authority of the Christian pleroma (fullness). Florvosky explains this well in his classic:

"Bible, Church and Tradition."

Protstantism is dying rapidly. It is beoming secularized, liberal and apostate. The "mythicist" theory is a direct result of this apostasy in Western Christendom.

There is what is known in logic as the fallacy of the immovable rock. Modern atheists have already made-up their mind. They are not interested in the truth and facts. They have an agenda, and nothing is going to stop them (as far as they are concerned). They will continue being deceived and deceiving others.

There is what is known in logic as the fallacy of the immovable rock. Modern atheists have already made-up their mind. They are not interested in the truth and facts. They have an agenda, and nothing is going to stop them (as far as they are concerned). They will continue being deceived and deceiving others.

Oh the irony, you accusing atheists of being just like you. My reply actually is at the appropriate level, since what is asserted without evidence can be discarded without evidence. None of your drivel is evidence of anything other than you not understanding the very concepts of logic, evidence and the burden of proof.

Actually, I dealt with them in a rather amusing way here After all you said you didn't want to participate in a debate so why bother?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

So no one actually dealt with my arguments. All they did was attack my person and accuse me of proselytizing. This is known in logic as the fallacy of circumstantial ad hominem.

Because you're a crackpot conspiracy theorist nut. Given your tangents, you're more of a threat to your continued presence this side of a padded room than you are to... whatever it is you're supposedly challenging.

Euthymius wrote:

You can't deal with the authority of the Orthodox Church. You can't even touch it. The Orthodox Church is the greatest proof there is for Christ. You know nothing of this, and nothing of our history.

Actually, I dealt with them in a rather amusing way here After all you said you didn't want to participate in a debate so why bother?

Liar! None of my arguments in this thread have been discussed on any other thread on this website. I am arguing here for the authority of the Orthodox Church.

The famous dictum of St. Vincent of Lerins was characteristic of the attitude of the Ancient Church in the matters of faith: "We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all" [Commonitorium, 2]. This was at once the criterion and the norm. The crucial emphasis was here on the permanence of Christian teaching. St. Vincent was actually appealing to the double "ecumenicity" of Christian faith — in space and in time. In fact, it was the same great vision which had inspired St. Irenaeus in his own time: the One Church, expanded and scattered in the whole world, and yet speaking with one voice, holding the same faith everywhere, as it had been handed down by the blessed Apostles and preserved by the succession of witnesses: quae est ab apostolis, quae per successionem presbyterorum in ecclesiis custoditur. ["Which is being preserved in the Church from the Apostles through the succession of the presbyters."] These two aspects of faith, or rather — the two dimensions, could never be separated from each other. Universitas and antiquitas, as well as consensio, belonged together. Neither was an adequate criterion by itself. "Antiquity" as such was not yet a sufficient warrant of truth, unless a comprehensive consensus of the "ancients" could be satisfactorily demonstrated. And consensio as such was not conclusive, unless it could be traced back continuously to Apostolic origins. -- Archpriest Georges Florvosky. Those who claim I'm proselytizing, are guilty of the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. I set forth my argument (thesis). And it has yet to be refuted. I can't be refuted. No one can even touch it.

you're making the typical, idiotic assumption that no atheist has ever read a bible, attended church, or at one time been theist, themselves.

I am making the assumption that no atheist on this website has ever been Orthodox or read one single Church Father. So for purposes of this discussion, none of you have ever attended Church (the Orthodox Church).

When I said I refused to stoop to the "mythicist" level, I meant I refuse to play their games. No person who is semi-educated and half-way intelligent, could possibly deny the historical Jesus. I simply used another argument (the authority of the Orthodox Church, apostolic succession, etc) that "mythicists" are not even aware of.

And by the way, there is a conspiracy against Christianity. It has existed since at least A.D. 43. Just because some people are ignorant of this conspiracy, does not mean it does not exist. The Masons and Jews have been trying to destroy and discredit Christianity for centuries. But they keep failing because they are dealing with a force that goes far beyond their comprehension.

you're making the typical, idiotic assumption that no atheist has ever read a bible, attended church, or at one time been theist, themselves.

I am making the assumption that no atheist on this website has ever been Orthodox or read one single Church Father. So for purposes of this discussion, none of you have ever attended Church (the Orthodox Church).

so, in other words, your whole argument and everything you've posted here is just like the bible; made up.

you're making the typical, idiotic assumption that no atheist has ever read a bible, attended church, or at one time been theist, themselves.

I am making the assumption that no atheist on this website has ever been Orthodox or read one single Church Father. So for purposes of this discussion, none of you have ever attended Church (the Orthodox Church).

so, in other words, your whole argument and everything you've posted here is just like the bible; made up.

Pretty much. Claims of authority that have all the foundation of a tidal mud flat, proselytizing, goading, and making shit up... is this crap allowed?

Euthymius, the burden of proof is on you. To claim authority based on the notion that your church was supposedly founded by some Jewish scholar that has yet to be proven to have existed is a logical fallicy in itself, yet you scream at others for doing the same. All the while, you give us nothing. Prove that Christ existed then prove he founded your church. Do so with verifiable, peer reviewed fact. If you are unable to do so, leave off.

so, in other words, your whole argument and everything you've posted here is just like the bible; made up.

I've read his argument, and your conclusion doesn't even logically follow. The Eastern Orthodox Church is not "made-up." It exists. Just look in your local phone book under "Churches." It has existed for two millenia.

Urbanredd wrote:

Pretty much. Claims of authority that have all the foundation of a tidal mud flat, proselytizing, goading, and making shit up... is this crap allowed?

What did he make up? In other words, if you're going to falsely accuse someone of something, prove it. And he is right about the circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. This fallacy is commited when a person avoids the actual argument, and accuses someone of "proselytizing." Its not "proselytizing". Its called DEBATE. Ever hear of that concept?

The zeitgeist of today is "don't offend anyone."

But people are going to be offended in debate. That's the nature of the beast.

It is not "hateful" to tell people the truth.

If I was a Doctor and I told you that you had Cancer, would it be "hateful" if I told you so? Or would you prefer to remain in invincible ignorance?

Urbanredd wrote:

Euthymius, the burden of proof is on you.

The proof is the fact the Eastern Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) churches exist. There's nothing to prove. THEY EXIST. The burden of proof is on YOU to refute those two sources of authority.

Urbanredd wrote:

To claim authority based on the notion that your church was supposedly founded by some Jewish scholar that has yet to be proven to have existed is a logical fallicy in itself, yet you scream at others for doing the same.

He didn't even make that argument . Your guilty of a straw man fallacy now.

Urbanredd wrote:

All the while, you give us nothing. Prove that Christ existed then prove he founded your church. Do so with verifiable, peer reviewed fact. If you are unable to do so, leave off.

He gave primary source documentation in six ancient languages!

As for peer reviews? You have got to be kidding. There is no historian (real historian) or "Jesus Scholar" alive in the world today who denies Jesus existed. In fact, you might want to consult every encyclopedia you can find and read under the heading "Jesus." Encyclopedia Britanica devotes no less then 20,000 words to Him.

But you won't even find one peer review article supporting a "mythicist" hypothesis. Simply because the latter are scholastic crackpots, and everyone knows it.

Euthymius is also a creationist, as evidenced by his past posts, which should be enough for anybody to stick him in the "Dumb As Shit: Totally Hopeless" column and ignore him.

I'm a creationist, and you are too. You just deny it. All of the founders of the major fields of science (Bacon, Newton, Pastuer, etc) were creationists. No one in their right mind could possibly argue the hypothesis that everything came from nothing. This is scientifically and metaphysically impossible, and you know it. Stop living a lie.

What Eienstien in the original post has never considered is "SO THE F WHAT!"

Even if we conceded that a specific man called Jesus actually lived, it wouldnt make hocus pocus real. Disimbodied beings dont knock up 9 to 14 year old girls, because disimbodied beings dont exist. Dead human flesh that has been dead for 3 days does not survive rigor mortis. Untill you have evidence explaining HOW these things happen other than, "God did it". We can set up an apointment for you to show us your evedence. How about a week from NEVER!

Dont talk to atheists about "authority" when you believe a zombie god. Put down your comic book you call a bible and pick up a physics book.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

The proof is the fact the Eastern Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) churches exist. There's nothing to prove. THEY EXIST. The burden of proof is on YOU to refute those two sources of authority.

No one, not a single responder, ever denied that the EO or RC churches existed. The two ton elision in your living room, however, is what has been said. That there is no verifiable evidence to support that the alleged "founder", Jesus Christ, ever existed.

No. Verifiable. Evidence.

The straw man in this discussion is that a responder claimed the churches did not exist--and YOU were the one who erected it.

The below thesis is simply my own observation, but I believe there is truth to it.

observation... you got in a time machine and went back to stalk people 2000 years ago? You believe it's true? Shouldn't you be rather sure that it's true before coming to a debate forum...

Quote:

I do not wish to partake in this debate,

You clearly do and you are lying here. Or else you wouldn't be coming to such a forum...

Quote:

because by doing so I would be stooping to your level and implying you have a case.

Unfortunately for you... we don't even need a case... you are the one holding the position that some mythical monster/zombie existed... it's up to you to prove he exists. You cannot do so.

Quote:

Atheists do not even have the right or authority to even question the historical Christ.

People who don't believe in Santa Claus don't have the right nor authority to question the existence of santa.

Errr... ya that makes no sense at all. Clearly you're showing yourself to be pretty much a crazy person now.

Quote:

The rise of the "mythicist" theory (that Jesus is mythical) is a direct result of the errors of the Protestant theology of the 16th century.

This is actually quite false. If you look at the early church fathers... from the 2nd century to 4th century... there are multiple example of these people trying to collect evidences for JEsus' existing. This creates the issue of where these early church fathers had to lie for jesus and interpolate into texts to create evidence... since even in the time of Eusibius apparently they already have no evidence of Jesus' existing...

Quote:

It was from liberal Protestantism that the "mythicist" theory begun.

Well since you are pretty much completely wrong here... I think that's all it takes to end you.

Quote:

The New Testament is one of the greatest proofs of Jesus, as is the existential and empirical reality of the Orthodox Church (which Christ founded).

Actually it's also the greatest proofs of unicorns, dragons, and the flatearth which has the sun circling us... Ya so pretty much since it's the worst proof ever and is wrong pretty much 99% of the time... I really doubt the even moreso absurd claims of say a mythical zombie is far more likely to be wrong.

Note: I am not a theologian or scholar. I am a simple layman. The below is a reflection of my own opinion, having studied this subject and engaged in several debates. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect any official position of the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church cannot be held responsible or liable for any errors I might make. The below thesis is simply my own observation, but I believe there is truth to it.

"An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified. If it later becomes proven or verified, it is no longer an opinion, but a fact."

1. First you say you are a "Layman" Then you say you have "Studied" This subject. If you Have Studied this subject you can not be a "Layman" But i will agree with what you said First That you are a "Layman" Because anyone who truely researched this issue would not believe what you do.

I am a member of the Greek Orthodox Church. I do not wish to partake in this debate, because by doing so I would be stooping to your level and implying you have a case. You don't. Atheists do not even have the right or authority to even question the historical Christ. I just have a few words.

1. "You do not wish to partake in this debate" Then pray tell what the hell is this big post of yours?

3. "Atheists do not even have the right or authority to even question the historical Christ" Oh.. And why not ? Last time i checked i lived in a country that had free speech and had in its constitution the RIGHT to pursue any religion or lack of religion we so choose. Now you might live in Communist China or some other country that tells its people what they can and can not believe. But the majority here do not so take your censorship and shove it where the sun don't shine.

The rise of the "mythicist" theory (that Jesus is mythical) is a direct result of the errors of the Protestant theology of the 16th century. It was from liberal Protestantism that the "mythicist" theory begun.

Uh NO... It rises from ANY empirical evidence to support his/it's existence (Besides the bible that is) (Btw.. Do you really need me to define empirical for you?)

The New Testament is one of the greatest proofs of Jesus, as is the existential and empirical reality of the Orthodox Church (which Christ founded).

Lol....The "NEW" Testament.. As in.. NEW !!!! Written by men to control MEN. (As is the entire Bible)

"Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. 5:29-30"

Why haven't you Cut off your hands and plucked out your eye's yet? Or are you not that so big of a believer? This is from YOUR NEW testiment btw..

But Protestantism rejected the Church (which is the other greatest proof), and relegated Christ to nothing but the testimony of the New Testament. The New Testament AND the Orthodox Church, comprise the two wings of authority of authentic Christianity. It takes two wings to fly. Protestants rejected the other wing (the Church Christ founded), and thereby damaged Christian authority and the message of authentic Christianity. By rejecting the Church, they made Christianity (and Christ) susceptible to attack. The rejection of the Orthodox Church left Christianity with holes, open to attack.

2. (Your last sentence) How can THE WORD OF GOD!! Be open to attack if it is THE WORD OF GOD!! ? Reason dictates that if it was truely the word of god there would be no question, No ambiguitys nothing at all that COULD open it up to attack. (Not to mention lots and lots of people being hit and killed by lightning every time they took gods name in vein)

The protestants were desperate to garner other "evidences" for Jesus, so they amassed a great deal of "extra-biblical" sources in corroboration with the New Testament (Roman sources, Gnostic, Patristic, Jewish, etc), in order to support the historical Jesus. But since they rejected the validity of the Orthodox Church, which Christ personally established, they were rejecting the greatest proof there is for His existence.

1. The greatest proof.. Once again the only proof is the Bible and that is no proof at all.

The Orthodox Church was founded by Christ. No historical person has ever founded such an institution; especially one that has lasted and survived through every conceivable onslaught for 2,000 years.

1. No the CHURCH was founded by MEN..

The scientific anthropic principle states that, in its initial conditions, the universe was fine-tuned for the existence and sustenance of life.

"Scientific" um.. ok yea......Pardon me while i take my blood pressure meds. pseudo-science is not i repeat NOT Science.

(Cut out huge paragraph that i didn't bother to read because it was too big) (Note of advice.. Use your head on spacing of your paragraphs please)

In Summary and Conclusion,

Oh.. A summary.. And thank god a end this this.. (<Sarcasm)

Protestantism rejected the actual Church that Christ personally founded.

Evidence ? That Christ PERSONALY founded anything.. ?(Any kind of historically verifiable evidence will do just fine) you know.. Like Archeology evidence .. etc

The "mythicist" theory (that Jesus is mythical) came from liberal Protestantism.

Ok... And thank you for calling it a theory. At least you have something right.

I would say the greatest proofs of Jesus Christ are:1. The Orthodox Church which He personally founded.

No proof that the Orthodox Church was founded by a jesus

3. The anthropic spirituality (fine-tuning) within the Orthodox Church that has produced countless saints.

Lol.. you call that proof ? Lol i call that job security Or mind control.

4. The New Testament documents.

Written by men... a LONG LONG time after jesus supposedly existed. lol in other words no proof at all.

5. All the other extra-biblical data.

I guess this is your catch all that means nothing really.

6. The collective cultural memory and tradition that has been handed down of the original divine knowledge (this is also contained within the authority of the Orthodox Church, apostolic succession and the rule of faith).

Lol....Yep and up untill just a few hundred years ago this collective culture belived the earth was the center of the universe. (You still don't believe that do you ?)

(Huge section where you failed to make any sense) (In truth i got tired of reading the BS)

Don't read modern day atheists who are 2,000 years too late and have no authority.

Lol.. We don't WANT authority.. Nor should ANYONE have authority over others.

(Insert list of ignorance and fear mongering)

These holy men had direct mystical contact with the risen Christ.

Lol... Mystical.. Nothing mystical about it. Men who wanted and craved control over other men and woman (Like you *See your claimes that we have no right to question things etc..)

"Both claims are false. Science has proven that something can come from nothing. An effect can happen without a cause."

I couldn't help but notice that comment. Can you give me a scientific example of something coming from nothing? Are you even familiar with the law of causality? Are you even familiar with the rules of evidence? And are you even familiar with what is generally described as common sense?

Who lived long after jesus supposedly lived, and whose references affirm the existence of christianity, not christ.

Alberto wrote:

5. Ancient pagan/Roman sources attesting to Him.

Again, merely attestations to the religion.

Alberto wrote:

6. Thousands of Christograms within the first and second centuries. These are the name of "Jesus Christ" on graves, etc.

So what. There are names of Egyptian gods on ancient Egyptian relics, and names of Greek gods on ancient Greek relics, and so on.

Alberto wrote:

7. Ancient Gnostic sources. This was a very ancient heresy.

So what. Akhenaton was a heretical pharoah. Does that mean the Egyptian gods existed?

Alberto wrote:

8. There is tons of archaeological data corroberating the New Testament documents. We even have Jesus tomb located, as well as his mothers.

We have a tomb some people believe was jesus'. How do we confirm this?

Alberto wrote:

9. The existance of the acronyms BC (before Christ) and AD (after Christ/or death) which marked history.

Wednesday, Thursday and Friday confirm the existence of wotan, thor and frey. Saturday confirms the existence of saturn. Our continuing use of the terms "sunrise" and "sunset" confirms that the sun travels around the earth.

Alberto wrote:

10. The world calendar is based on Christ's birth.

Because we're using a calendar designed under the authority of a pope. Because a couple of Roman emperors thought too highly of themselves, we now have 12 months instead of 10.

"The cause would be irrational beliefs and 1st century apocalypticism. Does the existence of scientology prove that xenu exists?"

Ah, but irrational beliefs are produced by irrational minds. All affects require a cause. Xenu is the affect of the historical and mental beliefs of Scientology. You prove nothing. You only substantiated what I said.

"Who lived long after jesus supposedly lived, and whose references affirm the existence of christianity, not christ."

No, they affirm the existance of Jesus Christ. Your view on the nature of history is very primitive. Even if the writers about Jesus lived long after him (which they didn't), it doesn't prove there is no valid data about him. If we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, we would have to dismiss a great deal of history. The modern versions and books on the civil war would have to be thrown out because their authors were not there to observe the civl war. Think about the logical conclusion of your argument. This would mean you could not read or trust any contemporary historian writing about history because they were not there to observe that history.

"Who lived long after jesus supposedly lived, and whose references affirm the existence of christianity, not christ."

No, they affirm the existance of Jesus Christ. Your view on the nature of history is very primitive. Even if the writers about Jesus lived long after him (which they didn't), it doesn't prove there is no valid data about him. If we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, we would have to dismiss a great deal of history. The modern versions and books on the civil war would have to be thrown out because their authors were not there to observe the civl war. Think about the logical conclusion of your argument. This would mean you could not read or trust any contemporary historian writing about history because they were not there to observe that history.

No, because contemporary historians can go back and find information about and by people who lived during and experienced the Civil War.

The best you have (the Bible) was written by unknown authors long after this Jesus suposedly walked the planet. The other stuff you claim you have from people who alledgedly knew the apostles is less reliable.

It is the equivalent of "My best friend's friend's mother in law's gardener's barber said X so X must be true."

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin

I will, for the sake of this thread, concede that Jesus could have possibly existed. But going on the assumption that he did in fact exist does nothing to validate claims of divinity.

If it could in fact be proven to the satisfaction of all sides, both theists and atheists, that a historical Jesus actually walked the Earth there is no reason to give credence to the supernatural aspects that have been ascribed to him.

Proving that Jesus existed carries no more weight than proving David Koresh actually existed. It is no remarkable thing to claim existence, that is something that over six billion humans can all lay claim to....so what ?

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

All affects require a cause. Xenu is the affect of the historical and mental beliefs of Scientology. You prove nothing. You only substantiated what I said.

Likewise, jesus is the Effect of the historical and mental beliefs of xianity. How can you acknowledge the irrationality of scientology, but refrain from acknowledging the same in xianity?

jcgadfly's response should suffice to school you, but since I'm in the moment, and since I don't care for your pretty boy avatar...

Alberto wrote:

Quote:

Who lived long after jesus supposedly lived, and whose references affirm the existence of christianity, not christ.

No, they affirm the existance of Jesus Christ. Your view on the nature of history is very primitive.

No, they affirm the existence of xianity. Your view on logic is beyond primitive.

Alberto wrote:

Even if the writers about Jesus lived long after him (which they didn't), it doesn't prove there is no valid data about him.

I never made such a correlation. If there is in fact valid data, please provide it. Simply be advised that these writers do not constitute valid data. Cursory mention of someone named jesus -- made only in reference to the beliefs of xians -- serves only to confirm that there were xians who held a belief in jesus -- not that there actually was a jesus.

The "Josephus et al." argument has been done to death already (todangst explores the matter thoroughly in this essay -- consult it if you have a genuine intellectual interest in the matter), so I'll simply reproduce the comparison I've made before:

Imagine someone several decades from now writing a history of the 20th century, and briefly mentioning the heaven's gate cult. He might touch upon their beliefs, namely that a spaceship was following the Hale-Bopp comet which would take them up as it passed earth. Now imagine reading this reference nearly 2,000 years later. What would this confirm? That there was actually a spaceship in the comet's tail, or that a bunch of head-shaven kooks believed there was a spaceship in the comet's tail? The same standard applies to the references you provided.

Alberto wrote:

If we carry your argument to its logical conclusion, we would have to dismiss a great deal of history. The modern versions and books on the civil war would have to be thrown out because their authors were not there to observe the civl war. Think about the logical conclusion of your argument. This would mean you could not read or trust any contemporary historian writing about history because they were not there to observe that history.

Very poor.

In the case of the Civil War, we have overwhelming contemporary evidence -- letters, photographs, graves -- i.e., evidence produced while it was occurring. No such comparable evidence hitherto has surfaced to historicize the life jesus supposedly lived. For your analogy (your very poor analogy) to correspond, we would need to have historical writings about an apocalyptic cult based on the Civil War decades after it was said to occur -- without any actual evidence that it ever occurred.

"In the case of the Civil War, we have overwhelming contemporary evidence -- letters, photographs, graves -- i.e., evidence produced while it was occurring.

Response: We have all of that in the case of Jesus also. There is no reason to believe the apostles were not witnesses of him unless a person assumes beforehand they weren't. John, for example, specifically states he was an eyewitnesses (see 1 John). Luke knew the apostles, gathered data and wrote a gospel and "history" (Luke, Acts). Biblical Archaeologist William F. Albright said Luke was a historian of the highest rank. But I think you and the other individual missed my point. My point was that if historical events demand eyewinesses in order to be true, then this would mean we cannot trust any modern "histories" of the civil war, etc because the historians were not there to observe any of those events. Just because a person writing about said events was not there to observe those events, does not logically imply there is no valid data of said events. That is my point. Even if the apostles were not contemporaries of Christ, it does not mean the writers of the New Testament did not have access to factual data regarding him. In the case of the civil war, etc we have information that has been passed down. No contemporary writer was there to observe any of those events.

"No such comparable evidence hitherto has surfaced to historicize the life jesus supposedly lived."

Response: I don't agree. I believe the evidence supports the traditional authorship of the Gospels, and some of the ancient apostolic writers (Ignatius, Clement, Papias, Polycarp) were contemporaries of the apostles and knew them personally. And some were only one or two generations away from the apostles. As for the other individual who implied that a historical Jesus does not prove he was divine, that's a good point. But I would argue that if Jesus really did rise from the dead, then he was divine. And I believe the best evidence supports his resurrection. Read "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus," by Licona and Habermas.

As for Josephus, there was dispute about one section in his writing about Jesus. But today eminent scholars believe the majority of the text is authentic (enought even to establish the historicity of Christ), And no one disputes his other sections on Mary, John the Baptist and other apostles. In the case of Jesus Christ, we have a convergence of evidence. This is what we would expect to find if he existed. And Christianity did not produce Christ. The former produced the latter. You put the carriage before the horse.